MERGED SCHOOL DISTRICTS CAN BE POSITIVE
FOR STUDENTS, NATIONAL STUDY BY IOWA STATE FINDS

AMES, Iowa -- A new study of nine merged school districts across the nation
by an Iowa State University researcher suggests that mergers are good for
students but bad for the vitality of towns left with no school building.

Thomas Alsbury, assistant professor of educational leadership and policy
studies, said he and two colleagues interviewed school district officials
undergoing mergers from 1994 to present. Districts studied were in Kansas,
Nebraska, Missouri, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Maine and Oregon.

The positive results for merged districts included increased diversity (both
socio-economic and/or ethnic); increased funding, staffing and teaching
flexibility; expanded programs targeted to special needs children, talented
and gifted students and student support such as counseling programs and
teacher aides; and improved educational quality and content.

Negative impacts of merging included the loss of one school board and the
perceived loss or diminished influence felt by the merging community, a
lingering sense of animosity from the community with a closed school, an
economic "death blow" to the community losing its school with an exodus of
residents and businesses, the loss of administrative positions -- but not of
teachers -- in the closed district, and nearly inevitable superintendent
turnover within two years in the new merged district.

Alsbury said the study resulted in several recommendations that can provide
a smoother, more positive transition for everyone. Merged districts should:

Develop a new, united identity. "Superintendents indicated the importance
of helping eliminate the perception of favoritism or disenfranchising by
changing the name of the new district to include both community names,
creating a new sports and school mascot, and redesigning district seals,
logos, letterhead and signs," said Alsbury.

Focus on the value of all communities. "Because the merging district may
constitute a remote location with a small population, superintendents need
to fight the tendency to conduct business as usual," said Alsbury.
"Superintendents need to make it a point to be visible, participatory and
involved in all merged communities."

Plan for superintendent turnover. "Merger superintendents were rarely
trusted by the sending district," said Alsbury. "Existing superintendents
could not shed the obligatory merger baggage and community unity generally
was unattainable without a new outside superintendent."

Work to unify students. "The ability to unify middle and high school
students in particular is key," said Alsbury.

Start mergers early or in phases, where possible. "In many districts, a
sharing of sports programs preceded a school merger," said Alsbury. "This
allowed time to build community relationships and to develop familiarity for
all involved."

Compromise to help lessen the closing district's loss of town identity.
"One successful example was a merged district that maintained the closed
school's athletic fields and played homes games there to help retain
community pride and identity," said Alsbury.

Provide strong leadership. "Mergers are not generally the result of a
popular vote," said Alsbury. "Successful mergers require a focus on
leadership, flexibility and creativity."

States also can help merged districts unify by providing incentive funds or
programs. These funds can be used for early retirement incentives, new
construction or remodeling, bus contract changes, etc. In many cases,
Alsbury said, such funding assistance lasts up to three years in cases of
successful mergers. Also, state flexibility in looking at other merger
incentives -- such as creative short-term taxing options or short-term
per-pupil hikes in state funding -- also help finance smooth merger
transitions.

"When all citizens in a community (those with and without children in
school) benefit financially from a merger, broad support was evidenced with
very little opposition," Alsbury said.

Of the nine districts studied, seven were from small school districts (three
or fewer schools buildings), one from a medium district (seven schools) and
one from a large district (more than seven schools). Seven of the mergers
occurred in the 1990s; the other two were in 2000 and 2002.

Four of the merged districts closed schools in at least one community. In
the remaining districts, no schools were eliminated. Two districts merged
because of state mandates while seven were voluntary -- sparked by a
declining economy, population and enrollment.